Eight years ago I got Client A sole custody in her divorce. Can I now represent Client B, the present wife of Client A's ex-husband, in Client B's own child-support case against a different ex-spouse?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney had represented Client A in a modification of a final divorce judgment, in which Client A sought sole physical possession of the minor child she had shared with her former husband, X. That litigation concluded about eight years earlier, at which point the attorney returned Client A's file and did not represent her again. More recently, Client B, who was X's present wife, retained the attorney for a modification of child support owed by her own former husband, Y, regarding their two minor children, and asked the attorney to continue representing her in enforcing the resulting child-support order. Client A accused the attorney of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct by representing Client B.

The panel concluded there was no violation. Because Client A's matter had concluded eight years earlier with no subsequent representation, she was a former client and Rule 1.9 governed. The representation of Client B was permitted because the custody matter and the child-support matter were not the same or substantially related, and because Client B's interests in the child-support matter against Y were not materially adverse to Client A's interests.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in February 1998, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.9 as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: When does a past client become a "former client" under Rule 1.9?

A: The opinion treated Client A as a former client because her matter had concluded about eight years earlier and the attorney had returned her file and never represented her again, so Rule 1.9, not the current-client conflict rule, applied.

Q: Why was there no conflict when the new client was connected to the former client's ex-husband?

A: The opinion found the custody matter and the new child-support matter were not the same or substantially related, and the new client's interests ran against her own ex-husband, Y, not against the former client, so the representation was permitted.

Q: Did the lawyer need Client A's consent to take Client B's case?

A: No. Because the matters were not substantially related and the interests were not materially adverse to the former client, the opinion found the representation permissible without the former client's consent.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 (Model Rule 1.9) as originally adopted. Rule 1.9(a) bars a lawyer who formerly represented a client from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the former client, unless the former client consents after consultation. Rule 1.9(b) bars using information relating to the prior representation to the former client's disadvantage except as Rule 1.6 or 3.3 would permit, or when it has become generally known. The panel found neither the "substantially related" element nor material adversity to the former client, so the representation was permitted.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.9 / RI RPC 1.9(a), 1.9(b) (conflict of interest: former client)

See also

• RI EAP Op. 98-05: Suing a former client in an unrelated car accident
• RI EAP Op. 98-11: Suing a former-client union on an unrelated matter
• RI EAP Op. 98-13: Representing the buyer against a former-client seller

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2098-04.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Final

                        RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT
                           ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
                         Opinion No. 98-04 Request No. 736
                             Issued February 19, 1998

Facts:

    The inquiring attorney represented client A in a modification of final judgment of divorce

in which Client A sought sole physical possession of her minor child with whom she shared
physical possession with her former husband, X. The litigation concluded eight years ago, at
which time the inquiring attorney forwarded Client A's file to her, and has not since represented
her. Recently, X's present wife, Client B, retained the inquiring attorney to assist her in a modi-
fication of child support from her former husband Y, relative to their two minor children. Client
B has requested that the inquiring attorney continue to represent her in the enforcement of the re-
sultant child support order. The inquiring attorney states that Client A has accused him/her of
violating the Rules of Professional Conduct by representing Client B.

Issues Presented:

    The inquiring attorney asks whether his/her continued representation of Client B is a vio-

lation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Opinion:

    Client A is a former client of the inquiring attorney. The matter was concluded eight

years ago. There has been no subsequent representation. Accordingly, Rule 1.9 (Conflict of in-
terest: Former client) applies. The representation of Client B is permitted under Rule 1.9 be-
cause the matters are not the same or substantially related, and further, because the interests of
Client B in the child support matter against Y are not materially adverse to the interests of Client
A.

Reasoning:

           Rule 1.9. Conflict of Interest: Former Client. - A lawyer who
           has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

           (a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related
           matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the
           interests of the former client unless the former client consents after
           consultation; or

Final 98-04
Page 2

           (b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvan-
           tage of the former client except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would
           permit or require with respect to a client or when the information
           has become generally known.

   Client A's custody matter against her former husband X relating to their minor child, and

Client B's child support matter against her husband Y relating to their minor children are not the
same or substantially related matters. Moreover, Client B's interests in the child support matter
are materially adverse to Y, and are not, under these facts, materially adverse to the interests of
Client A. Accordingly, the inquiring attorney's continued representation of Client B is permissi-
ble under the Rules of Professional Conduct.